Utopia does not exist and few supporting the free market make such claims. And the free market absolutely does not assume that people will not be greedy, it relies on the fact that they will be. The free market allows for greedy people to satisfy their wants by first satisfying the wants of the people. Government on the other hand allows for greedy people unfair advantages to keep out competitors with over regulation and subsidize their inferior products/services. And yes few people educate themselves in their health care privider because its not a luxury and therefore boring and not worth their time. But we need to eliminate the attitude that people take with boring but important decisions in society so that competition will florish between insurance companies.

Your claim that the free market will solve nothing is completely baseless.

I can't imagine he'd go down worse then James Buchanon or Franklin Pierce who essentially let the god damn civil war happen on their watches.

Additionally, I think it's quite the opposite.   Obamacare will be quite shitty and turn out to be a big handout/favor to the insuance agencies.

Which is why it will need to be replaced....

and government regulations rarely ever roll backwords.  Which means we'll be looking at universal healthcare.

Democrats will vote for it because they'll want it.  Republicans will vote for it because they'll want to end the insurance company handouts.

Obama's won, barring some surprise upswell in republican support, (ha!) it's just he'll go down as the guy who fucked up on the first plan.  Though all told on balance, he'll take that any day of the week. 

Decades after universal healthcare, history will soften as it always does, and he'll eventually be remembered just as the president who set the motion for universal healthcare.

BOLDED: This is exactly why it is a utopian idea. The solutions you provided are idealist and have no base.  Greedy people will never help the poor in any system ever, that's why they are greedy in the first place. Besides, the rich tend to stick to each other and their own business, very few acutally get involved. You also failed to provide on how competition will florish in a monopoly without having to do large scale redistrubtion of wealth.

My claim still stands =).

I'm guessing you're joking, but just in case you're not, US presidents can only run up to two 4 year terms.

Haha forgot James. But feel like Obama will have more long-term negative effects with bills like a ACTA which he tried passing without anyone knowledge and try to pass without congress even getting the chance to read it! James was failure that in the long-term as recovered in a sense but Heathcare and Cyber bills are like a crack in dam. It will lay the foundation for the worst to come.

On a side note, I had to drop my insurance the other day because my insurance was going to cost me $5,000 more next year. I loved my program now I'm basically on welfare insurance compared to my great insurance previously. It makes sad to know others like me are paying a price.

I'm going to be using this gif a lot, btw.  Get used to it.

Is failure even an option, or will our corrupt and retarded government push it no matter what the cost? I could easily imagine it making life worse and them doing nothing to take it back. If our well being was high on their priorities list then things would be very different, so I have to assume Obamacare is just a way of life now.

An environment where competition is more intense allows more easily for new entrants into the market allowing for new business to form creating additional opportunities for people to earn wealth and preventing large companies with owners that posses all the wealth from protecting future streams of wealth against competition. 

The idea that the rich do business between each other with few other people involved is also nonsense. Who do you think produces all the goods and services the rich enjoy? Rich people may be at the top but they have a considerable number of people producing goods and services for them, and the people under them needs good and services in turn for the work they provide. And the rich as they are called are not a static class of people as they often move down into lower income brackets over time as many people move up. 

And if you want to look at the effects of wealth distribution just look at the last hundered years of massive increases to both the government and the gap between the wealthy and the poor. All wealth distribution does is creat dependants on the state, and thats just the way the State likes it.

Democrats/Republicans = Statist

I'm fully aware what the idea behind the free market is, that was not my question.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I was saying. The people who own the means of production and the workers are on very different levels and they interact based on this scenario only of their work environment, to a degree. The worker does his job and gets paid for it while the company owner gets what he needs and everyone is happy but outside of this relationship they do not interact. But most owners will likely only offer benefits to their own company and their worker, which in turn will attract more workers , which is logical, and in the end only the richest and most powerful companies will survivie, in a monopoly.

The rich are very much a static class, most people do not get even close to the higher classes it's a pipe dream that has been continuously propagated. Look at all the powerful political and economic families in the United States and their connections, these aren't people that just suddenly rose to greatness.

To tie this all in with Obamacare. it's a hybrid system thats due to failure because of mismangement and it does not make anyone happy. The big problem now is exactly in the OP, "then what". No one really knows. I could sit here all night debating why a free market system will not work (I won't) or on the flipside argue why socializatied healthcare such as the one here in Canada would also not work in terms of economic status.

Since I do not have a deep knowledge on American society and how it functions my only option would be to leave it up to the states and see what they want. I can think of a million reasons why that is a terrible idea but it's all I got. But really when political parties are aruging over ideologies in debates such as these do they ever stop and think in this situation on what people acutally want?

People want different things. The government just forces the most popular on everyone. I'm quickly moving more and more towards smaller and smaller government. Yes people need a helping hand now and then, we should be moving towards a society where people help out those in need who had a bad run of luck.

Non-agression principle for life.